Tonia Antoniazzi
MP for Gower · Labour · United Kingdom
“Linked to this are concerns about the Executive’s overspending and budget sustainability. At the end of the last financial year, the Government provided the Executive with a £400 million reserve claim loan to cover departmental overspends in health and education.”
“The increase we have seen over the current spending review period may be to cover the broadened remit, but no information is publicly available about how the level of funding is determined by the Government.”
“I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this timely debate on the spending of the Northern Ireland Office. As I stand here today, it remains the case that Northern Ireland has no agreed budget, despite it being a quarter of the way through the financial year.”
“However, Peter May’s recent review of the ICRIR raises some serious concerns about its capacity and governance. According to the review, cases are being paused due to a lack of resource which, in a recent Committee session, the ICRIR disputes.”
“I thank the hon. Member for his intervention about the local growth fund. In our Committee session today, we grilled the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is sitting on the Front Bench, about this funding.”
“Could the Secretary of State provide more detail on, and has he had any correspondence about, the funding that I have heard has been provided by the Irish Government for community cohesion following the riots.”
The complete record
Every one of 604 lines we hold for Tonia Antoniazzi, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 13.
“I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this timely debate on the spending of the Northern Ireland Office. As I stand here today, it remains the case that Northern Ireland has no agreed budget, despite it being a quarter of the way through the financial year. Executive Ministers have failed to agree a budget, which has left Departments and civil servants forced to rely on emergency contingency powers, with spending limited to 95% of last year’s opening budget. Most concerningly, this leaves the people of Northern Ireland uncertain about the public services they will be able to access in the coming year. Although the Finance Minister published a draft multi-year budget in January, it was not supported by the other parties in the Executive and, frustratingly, that deadlock is still unresolved.”
“We know that the Secretary of State has met the Finance Minister on a number of occasions in recent weeks, and I would be most grateful if he updated us on his discussions with Executive Ministers on urgently finding a resolution to agree a budget, and on the support the Government are providing to enable such a resolution to be found.”
“I recognise that we do find ourselves in a rather ridiculous situation, which impacts directly on the lives of people in Northern Ireland. This precarious financial situation has serious implications beyond Northern Ireland, and the consequences for the Northern Ireland Office and the Treasury should be of concern to Members across the House. The vast majority of Northern Ireland’s funding comes from the UK Government through the block grant. Executive Ministers have raised concerns about the adequacy of the settlement and are calling for further funding. They cite the current financial year as being particularly challenging for Departments, with the block grant set to drop by 2.7%, before only modest increases in the following years.”
“Linked to this are concerns about the Executive’s overspending and budget sustainability. At the end of the last financial year, the Government provided the Executive with a £400 million reserve claim loan to cover departmental overspends in health and education. That follows the £559 million Executive debt write-off by the Government in 2024 as part of the financial package accompanying the restoration of power sharing. The Northern Ireland Fiscal Council warns that overspending is now becoming normalised, and it describes how repeated bail-outs “could dull the Executive’s incentive to take difficult fiscal decisions”. Overspending against available budgets by devolved Governments amounts to serious financial mismanagement, according to Treasury policy. Would the Secretary of State describe the Executive’s actions in the same terms?”
“I thank the hon. Member for his intervention about the local growth fund. In our Committee session today, we grilled the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is sitting on the Front Bench, about this funding. On numerous occasions, we have noted our disappointment that the relevant Department has been able to shift the spending, but I am sure that the Secretary of State will give the hon. Member an explanation later. Given the potential impact of having no agreed budget on the delivery of public services if the situation continues into the autumn, does the Secretary of State foresee a circumstance in which he would step up and step in to set a budget for Northern Ireland, should the Executive remain unable or unwilling to do so?”
“In his response, will the Secretary of State address the Government’s expectations of the Executive taking forward these options, and tell us what steps the Government are taking to help put Northern Ireland’s finances on a more sustainable footing?”
“Granting the reserve loan was on the condition that the Treasury conducted an open book exercise on the spending of Northern Ireland Departments. This found that spending per head on policing in Northern Ireland is 166% of what it is in England, spending per head on health, excluding social care, is 152% and spending per head on schools is 140%. On the other hand, spending per head on prisons and probation services is only 79% of that spent in England and Wales. The report presents a number of policy options, and says that the Executive could make savings of up to £3 billion. However, Northern Ireland Ministers contest many of its findings.”
“I think there are further discussions to be had about need, the Barnett formula and all those things. I am sure those discussions are happening and that those things are being continually reviewed, but I do agree about the need. The Executive will repay this £400 million loan over three years—£80 million this year and £160 million next year, with £160 million due in 2028-29. Given the Executive’s track record, are the Government confident that these payments will be met? Northern Ireland Ministers have warned of further overspends, given their continued constrained financial position. The two Departments responsible for the reserve claim are likely to see a drop in their resource funding this year. How will the Government respond to further overspends?”
“The Secretary of State told us that confidence in the ICRIR will be gained “if it provides answers to families who have been looking for them for so long”. Does he share my fears about the impact that pausing cases will have on victims and families who have already been made to wait decades for answers about their loved ones? Can he also assure the House that confidence in the commission’s financial management and governance arrangements has improved since the review?”
“However, Peter May’s recent review of the ICRIR raises some serious concerns about its capacity and governance. According to the review, cases are being paused due to a lack of resource which, in a recent Committee session, the ICRIR disputes. It says that the current funding levels “are not sufficient” to support its view of what is required under the legislation, with “real concern that they will not have the means to deliver case outcomes within any reasonable timeframe”. The ICRIR has also seen three finance directors in the past year, with the review describing “a low level of maturity in terms of its financial and corporate governance.” The review notes that the ICRIR is submitting to the Treasury a new business case seeking additional funding. Will the Secretary of State update us on the status of that?”
“Could the Secretary of State provide more detail on, and has he had any correspondence about, the funding that I have heard has been provided by the Irish Government for community cohesion following the riots. Finally, I turn to the issue of legacy and the work of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, which I will refer to as the ICRIR. This body was set up under the previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. It is responsible for investigations of legacy cases to provide information to victims, survivors and their families about troubles-related deaths and serious injury. For the present financial year, the ICRIR is receiving £232 million over the whole spending review period.”
“The increase we have seen over the current spending review period may be to cover the broadened remit, but no information is publicly available about how the level of funding is determined by the Government. While we know that publishing some information may not be possible due to security considerations, my Committee has called for greater transparency, and I would be grateful for the Secretary of State’s response to our recommendations. The recent riots in Northern Ireland are of great concern, and they will be of serious concern to Members across this House. I take this opportunity to commend the PSNI and the emergency services for their response to the disorder. The PSNI was already facing a constrained financial position, so I welcome the additional £4 million provided by the NIO to meet some of the costs it incurred.”
“I agree that our Committee has seen that the need is greater, and we are working to represent Northern Ireland and the people who live there as best we can. My Committee has recently conducted inquiries on policing and security and on legacy, which the Government directly fund. The Police Service of Northern Ireland currently receives £37.8 million a year directly from the Government as additional security funding. This ringfenced funding was introduced in 2011, and until last year it was specifically used to address the threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism, but this ASF has now been broadened to cover all national security threats.”
“I thank the hon. Member for that contribution. It has been very clear from the Committee’s evidence sessions that, to cover the legacy issues it is still dealing with and will have to deal with, the PSNI is taking resource of time and money that it cannot afford, which impacts on what it can provide on the street, so I too would like to highlight that point. We want to see a stable Executive, backed up by fair and sustainable public finances, reflecting the needs of the people of Northern Ireland. I am concerned that the Executive’s financial constraint and the funding pressures facing the PSNI and the ICRIR are having a very real impact on people’s lives today.”
“I want everybody to be able to see that across this House, we care for everybody wherever they live, but especially in Northern Ireland. Question deferred until tomorrow at Seven o’clock (Standing Order No. 54).”
“I thank the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), for their positive engagement with the Committee. We understand the challenges the Secretary of State faces, but we hope to provide the correct amount of scrutiny to get Northern Ireland into a better place financially. Many thanks to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and also to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) for his kind words. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for talking about the very difficult reading that is the Muckamore Abbey hospital review.”
“As chair of the all-party parliamentary beer group, I was in a lot of pain this time last week—I was pedalling to pubs in Norfolk, and was probably just outside of Norwich, or maybe somewhere nearby. This week, Pedalling to Pubs came to Parliament. It has raised over £130,000 for two brilliant charities that support the beer and pub industry, Only A Pavement Away and the Licensed Trade Charity. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the riders, the support team, and the Members of this House who supported me financially to do that silly act? Will he also congratulate Ben McCarthy—an inspirational Down’s syndrome young man—and his mum, who absolutely smashed it and really showed me what it means to be committed and to support our pub industry?”
“I thank the Minister for talking to me in advance of her statement and the publication of the draft Bill. Does the symmetry in the Bill allow detransitioners to bring retrospective cases against therapists and professionals who transitioned them using the affirmative approach that was in use at the Gender Identity Development Service and is still prevalent in many settings today?”
“Everybody knows that my constituency is one of the most beautiful and the No. 1 tourist destination in the United Kingdom, so the safety of those who live on and visit the stunning coastline is a priority. I heard the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) ask a question about coastguard rescue officers. Will the Leader of the House make time for an urgent debate in this House on the impact of the decision to stop paying coastguard rescue officers for emergency call-outs from September, following a recent Court of Appeal ruling? What support will be provided to the volunteer coastguard teams, including those at Rhossili, Oxwich and Mumbles in my constituency, to maintain effective emergency response capability?”
“My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and her sister was an absolute legend. I want to make a very light-hearted comment. As everybody knows, I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary beer group. I was really honoured this morning to stand with my hon. Friend behind the pumps in the Strangers Bar, with a beer that has been made in memory of Jo Cox. It is for sale in the bar. That is a testament to the people she reached and the lives she touched.”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) on securing the urgent question. I pay tribute to the Chief Constable, the PSNI and the emergency services for their work and their bravery, which continues to be unstinted. Does the Minister agree that the events we witnessed last night demonstrate the importance of political leaders speaking with one voice in condemning violence, rejecting extremism and supporting those working to build a shared and prosperous future for all communities and the people in Northern Ireland?”
“During our Committee’s inquiry on legacy, we heard serious concerns from victims and survivors about the Government’s approach to information disclosure. In the Dillon case, the Supreme Court showed a significant degree of deference to Government on national security grounds. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give to families and survivors that national security will not be invoked to withhold information simply because it is uncomfortable for the state, rather than because its disclosure would present a genuine risk to the public?”
“The two incidents in Lurgan and Dunmurry are of deep concern to us and to my Committee. I give my sincere thanks to the PSNI officers who have kept their communities safe. Does the Secretary of State agree that those responsible should face the full force of the law?”
“I thank the Secretary of State for the way in which he has carried out his work on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill with such sensitivity to all parties. However, I would also like him to explain and give more detail on the responsibility to the victims and survivors of the troubles, as well as the special duty of care to our veterans.”
“I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. However, this faux outrage was never— [ Interruption. ] My Committee has done some excellent work on this very sensitive matter, and when we were in Westminster Hall there was no faux outrage. These people did not turn up to speak up for the veterans they speak of now. The Secretary of State is doing an excellent job—so is my Committee—and I find it very wrong that these matters are being presented in this way on the Floor of the House. We need a carry-over motion. We need to be in a better place, where there will be amendments.”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that while websites advertising prostitution such as Vivastreet and AdultWork constitute human trafficking operations in and of themselves in Scotland, the National Crime Agency should also be investigating these sites for facilitating organised crime in England and Wales? These websites allow single individuals to pay for multiple prostitution adverts—a practice that a KC told the Home Affairs Committee is evidence of controlling prostitution for gain, which is a criminal offence.”
“Does my hon. Friend share my alarm at the findings of the Home Affairs Committee inquiry into human trafficking in 2023, which found that the partnership working between the National Crime Agency, the Home Office and websites advertising prostitution was “inexplicable, particularly given the total absence of evidence that it has led to a reduction in the scale of trafficking facilitated by these websites—and the flagrant facilitation of trafficking enabled by, for instance, single individuals being allowed to advertise multiple women for prostitution.” This is abhorrent, and I want to know what my hon. Friend thinks.”
“While remaining neutral on the issue, the Government have made changes to clause 361 to ensure workability, and I emphatically support them. They take a similar approach to the changes introduced by the Bill for pardons for convictions and cautions for loitering or soliciting when under 18.”
“It includes women like Laura, a young mother and university student who was criminalised for an abortion using illicit medication forced on her by an abusive partner. She was in a physically, sexually and emotionally abusive relationship, and her partner told her not to go to a doctor. When she was arrested, he threatened to kill her if she told anyone he was involved. She was jailed for two years, and this conviction remains on her criminal record. Women who have faced investigation or conviction should not have to continue living with the consequences of this outdated legislation—laws that Parliament has finally and rightly decided should no longer apply to women. That is why clause 361 is so needed.”
“Colleagues will remember that the women forced to endure criminal investigations under these offences are overwhelmingly already vulnerable, and are often victims of acute abuse and exploitation. The retention of these convictions and records causes them ongoing harm under a law that Parliament has been clear has no place in modern society. This includes women whose experiences I spoke of in my speech in this place last year—women like Nicola Packer, who, after experiencing complications in her abortion treatment, was arrested and held for 36 hours in custody, and endured nearly five years of investigation and prosecution. She was found not guilty at trial, but the investigation, arrest and charge remain on her record.”
“Lords amendment 361 and the Government amendments to it would pardon women found guilty of ending their own pregnancy and expunge the records of investigations, arrests and charges of women under abortion law, whether or not they were found guilty. That is important. Current law means that abortion offences are classed as serious and violent crimes, so even without a conviction, the fact that a woman has been arrested and interviewed under these offences remains on her Disclosure and Barring Service check for life. That actively harms her job prospects and ability to travel to certain jurisdictions, and it leaves her with a permanent record on police computer systems or, in the case of conviction, a permanent criminal record that she ended her own pregnancy outside the law.”
“I would welcome a commitment that she will write to write to police forces in England and Wales, because they clearly have not been listening to the will of Parliament—we are aware of at least three further women having been investigated for ending their own pregnancies since the Commons vote in June. As well as firmly supporting the decriminalisation of women in cases of abortion, the House of Lords passed an amendment to protect the women already harmed by these outdated laws. I pay tribute to Baroness Thornton, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Baroness Watkins of Tavistock and Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer for tabling this cross-party amendment.”
“Alongside the women affected, I am very pleased that once the Bill becomes law, no more women in England and Wales will be subject to the threat of criminal prosecution on suspicion of ending their own pregnancy, but I would welcome clarification from the Minister regarding current investigations. Parliament has been resoundingly clear in its support for removing women from the criminal law related to abortion. Can the Minister confirm that once the Bill becomes law, the expectation is that all current investigations and prosecutions under these offences should be dropped?”
“I rise to speak in support of Lords amendment 361 and Government amendments to it. I was horrified to learn of the increasing number of cases in recent years of women facing criminal investigations and prosecutions on suspicion of illegal abortion offences. The abject cruelty that more than 100 desperate women have been forced to endure under a 165-year-old law is barbaric and completely unnecessary. That is why I tabled an amendment to the Bill last year to stop this, which was emphatically supported in this Chamber in June. The House of Lords recently supported that change as well. As a Parliament, we took that decision because we listened to the advice of professionals and the evidence gathered over a long period of time from a number of places and we chose to stand up for women.”
“Though the funding in the spring statement is welcome, the Secretary of State told us that he was looking at alternative sources of funding for the charity sector because of the disappointment in Northern Ireland over the local growth fund split of 70:30. Will he update the House on his conversations?”
“Q6. My constituents Tony and Rebecca Wadley received insulation under the Tory Government’s ECO4 scheme, but the work left their home with black mould, leaks, damp and even a solar fire—damage now requiring £100,000-worth of repairs. Rebecca is suicidal, Tony has had pneumonia and their asthmatic son cannot live at home. Like many others, they are required under the rules to use the same contractor responsible for the faulty work, but only up to £20,000. Will the Prime Minister commit to overhauling this broken system, so that my constituents and many others can receive fully funded repairs carried out by a competent builder?”
“The hon. Gentleman is making a very good start to his speech. I appreciate that this is very contentious, but I am concerned about the manner in which young people—children—are asked questions. The KIDSCREEN-10 index is a primary outcome measure for the PATHWAYS trial, and when I look at the questions, I wonder how my son would have answered them aged 11. One of them asks: “Have your parent(s) treated you fairly?” The truth is that any child at that age would probably say, “No.” Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that these questions are not fit for purpose?”
“The problem is that the MHRA lead, Professor George, is being hounded and scapegoated after recusing himself. It is really sad to see a professional in such a situation. I urge my hon. Friend to use words with caution, because he recused himself. He is a great man who is being hounded.”
“That is likely to concern those who argue that retaining the so-called ministerial veto over what is disclosed presents a serious challenge to the Bill’s overall architecture and risks undermining trust and confidence.”
“The Government reject the call for appointments to be routed through the commission, arguing that their approach is consistent with that for appointing inquiry chairs under the Inquiries Act 2005 and making many other public appointments. Information disclosure has been and remains one of the more significant issues with legacy policy. The troubles Bill assigns the Government a new role in balancing information disclosure with national security—something that Ministers did not undertake under previous legacy measures before the 2023 Act or with Operation Kenova. Our report highlights concerns about trust, appeal rights and how this provision will operate in practice. It is clear from the Government’s response that the proposals on information disclosure will not be revisited.”
“None the less, they acknowledge that views differ on the matter, and have committed to continued engagement and careful consideration of those perspectives. Again, I gently encourage the Government to revisit the definition. We heard similar concerns regarding the rigidity and exclusivity of the list in the Bill stipulating what is considered “serious physical or mental harm”. On inquests, the Government’s plan for an enhanced inquisitorial mechanism through the legacy commission is seen by some as an improvement on the system introduced by the 2023 Act, but concerns persist, including regarding why judges are to be appointed by Ministers, rather than through the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission.”
“Owing to time, I will concentrate on some overarching ones, namely investigations, inquests, and information disclosure. On investigations and the question of who may request one, we heard from many stakeholders that the Bill’s narrow definition of a close family member risks excluding relatives who have often been central to pursuing answers, sometimes for decades after the events in question. Because the trauma is often carried from one generation to the next, our legislation must be designed with an awareness of these long-term and cross-generational effects. Organisations including the ICRIR have urged the Government to broaden the definition of a close family member. In response to our report, however, the Government maintain that their current approach is “balanced”.”
“Therefore, we concluded that in packaging these as protections, rather than as safeguards available to all, the Government risk undermining trust in this process among the very groups—veterans and others—in which they hope to instil confidence. In response to us, the Government acknowledge the concerns that measures may not go far enough for many. They add that they are in active consultation with veterans on further steps, emphasising that any additional proposals must be “practically deliverable” and compliant with human rights obligations. I welcome the fact that the Government are listening, but we still await the detail of further measures before we can make a proper assessment. On the structures proposed to address legacy, our report highlights several areas of concern.”
“The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Victims and Survivors, Joe McVey, recently expressed concerns that the debate on legacy legislation had been reduced to a false dichotomy of “veterans versus victims”. His warning is important, and I encourage us all to bear it firmly in mind as we move forward. On veterans, as I said at the outset, we took evidence from veterans’ representatives throughout our inquiry. The Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, whom we heard from twice, told us late last year that the Government had been listening to veterans’ concerns “to an extent”, but said that the proposals were not really “protections” for veterans so much as safeguards for all witnesses.”
“On victims, financial resourcing may form the foundation of the legacy process, but victims and survivors unquestionably sit at its heart. We heard a range of concerns about how the new approach will operate in practice for them. For instance, on the proposed victims and survivors advisory group under the proposed legacy commission, questions have been raised about its membership, the method of appointment to it and the risk of it duplicating the important work already undertaken by the victims forum in Northern Ireland. I welcome the fact that the Government commit to complementing the work of existing groups, but we await further information regarding the composition and operation of this new group.”
“Again, the Government told us that the question of funding for the PSNI and other devolved organisations is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive, and that those organisations are best placed to identify sensitive material. However, Operation Kenova did not undertake such a predetermined assessment of legacy materials. I therefore reiterate our call for the Government to reassess the current financial envelope and to consider the wider implications of their reforms, particularly the substantial and currently underfunded administrative burdens they place on organisations such as the PSNI, which are already under significant pressure to deliver core services in the present, while also addressing the past.”
“However, the Chief Constable of the PSNI told us in January: “I get sent by the Secretary of State to the Executive, and by the Executive to the Secretary of State. The Executive will say, ‘This is Westminster-related’ and Westminster will say, ‘We give a significant grant to the Executive. It is for them to pay for this.’ I am caught between the two”. That is clearly an issue that needs to be addressed. On the requirement for bodies such as the PSNI to classify documents as sensitive or prejudicial before transferring them to the legacy commission, the Chief Constable also told us that, alongside that being logistically and financially burdensome, there are severe implications for trust and confidence in the PSNI.”
“Despite the commission being given new responsibilities through the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, the Government have not updated the initial funding allocation of £250 million following the passage of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. We put that to the Secretary of State when he appeared before my Committee earlier this month, and he acknowledged that further discussions will need to take place with the Treasury about the funding of the commission. Those conversations need to happen now. Moreover, the Government state that funding for the PSNI is a matter for the Department of Justice and that it is for the Northern Ireland Executive to consider how and where they allocate funding.”
“Even the current legacy investigation body, the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, pointed to concerns about sustainable financing going forward, given the increase in demand for its services—an increase that we hope will only continue under the new legacy commission. If the commission is to receive relevant information in a timely manner, the resourcing of organisations such as the Police Service of Northern Ireland also needs to be considered, given the new demands on them to retrieve and categorise their records. However, the Government’s response does not fully address the concerns we raised.”
“Although the Government provided a detailed response at the end of January, for which we are grateful, a number of important matters remain outstanding, and this debate offers an opportunity to explore some of those further. I will start with resourcing. Beginning with the very foundation of the legacy process, my Committee repeatedly heard serious concerns about resourcing, which we set out in detail in the report. Put simply, no amount of reform, good will or political momentum will deliver truth or justice if the necessary funding is not in place for investigative bodies or those responsible for information disclosure.”